What is your idea of acceptable wages? That is rhetorical question because any two people have very different ideas of what that number is. It's not a number that fits everyone, that number does not exist. It's unacceptable to take a wage cut because of loss aversion. No matter how small it is. If they had said everyone gets paid 10 cents less an hour, the unions would have done the same thing and the company would still go under. I'm not saying they were not asking the workers to conceded a lot, they were. But good luck finding jobs for that many union workers in that area.

Well to answer your last question first, my idea of acceptable wages are wages that your average employee is going to be willing to accept for the amount, level, and quality of work they are doing. Essentially if employees are satisfied with their wages, their wages are acceptable. There's nothing complicated about it. Obviously in this case they were not being paid wages that they found acceptable.

I think that people have let thoughts of democracy ruin their overall sense of social rationality. Democracy is barely functional as a political systems, let alone a system of management within a company. And I agree that upper management is not as important as the workers, but that isn't the workers decision to be made. It's the owners decision to be made, whether that be one man or a group of majority share holders. They are the ones with the most at stake, that is the company.

First of all: Democracy is the BEST political system and I fucking dare you to argue otherwise. I'm not saying that companies need to be run fully democratic, but we can see what happens when they run like communist dictatorships. In the US we get to vote on our president every 4 years, it's not much but it means the president has strong pressure to govern effectively and efficiently to appease the american people who's votes he needs. US presidency, despite being one of the hardest jobs, and easily being the most important job in the country pays a surprisingly low salary. $400K a year might seem like a lot, but for being leader of the free world it's quite modest. The president is a fairly efficient contributor to the country as a whole. You know why? Because if the president tried triple his own salary it would be political suicide for him and damage his parties reputation.In the private sector CEOs aren't put up for review every few years by their employees. They don't work for their employees the way the president works for the american people. They can dictate their own salary and the employees, if they want to keep their jobs, can't do shit about it. And would you believe it, the salaries that executives choose to pay themselves tend to be orders of magnitude above that of the rest of the company.We sure do spend a lot of money on management.

Everyone always makes that particular statement about upper management. And while the work in a bee hive is all accomplished by workers, the hive still dies if it's without a Queen. The same thing can be said with the situation of corporate management. They seem useless, but the company does not run without them. Without them, there is no company and place for the workers to work. It's symbiosis, and everyone treats it like they are parasites. The workers are responsible for making the product and shipping it places it needs to go. But decisions that upper management makes can make a company prosper or die. If that was not the case, we would not have them in a company structure.

I never said that executives are useless. I said they're inefficient, and they are. The sad fact is that the amount of pay a person receives has nothing to do with how much work a person contributes and everything to do with how much leverage they can get. CEOs have enormous leverage over a company, and gosh be darned wouldn't you know it they always seem to get compensated well, often regardless of the companies success. The idea that somehow CEOs actually need these absurd salaries so that they can be incentivized to work hard has become a sick joke. Perhaps if they could be fired by someone for crappy job performance like everybody else they'd have a REAL incentive to work hard.It's funny that you use a beehive as an analogy however, because bees aren't really like humans at all. The bees in a hive don't fight over resources and pay. They work together to make the hive as efficient and successful as they can. The queen bee contributes far more to a hive than any CEO could ever contribute to a company, and yet she demands much less. If fact queen bees don't really demand at all, they are practically slaves to their hive.

Also, Unions may have one point been about giving the workers control of the company, but it hasn't been like that in a long time. They aren't fighting for reasonable work hours or worker safety or even fighting for reasonable wages. All unions do is fight for ever increasing amounts of money or benefits from a company. That system is completely broken at this point. All it does is look at the workers and not the situation. And as I mentioned, collective bargaining is what prevented people from making the decision to stay employed at lower wages if they chose to. It effectively robs them of the ability to make their own contract.

A company is like an enormous clock. It only works if all the little cogs mesh together. Whether they like it or not all the employees with important roles in a company depend on one another for the company to function. I'm sure some of those people would have been willing to work for less to keep the company afloat, but just as the workers of a company supposedly depend on the executives at the top, so to do they depend on one another. If a large enough portion of the worker base isn't happy with the way things are, it's a problem for all of them

The company wanted to lose the foot to save the body, but the workers chose to let the body die because it's not fair to lose the foot. It wasn't fair to ask the workers to take pay cuts while some of the upper management got raises (some took a salary of $1 for the year, as it turns out), but it was rational on a business level to ask the workers to take a pay cut. The Unions irrationally chose to lose 18000+ jobs (I read that number somewhere, but don't quote me on it) rather than have 18000+ lower paid jobs.

Any economist will tell you that the closing down and liquidation of a failing company is a good thing for the economy. Perhaps now the millions of cells in that "foot" will be able to find more prosperous "bodies" to latch themselves on to. Or perhaps they really did screw themselves over. I'm not really interested in arguing individual cases, but this being an already weak company that was apparently not capable of paying it's employees acceptable wages I reckon this is probably ultimately for the best.

I'll tell you why that wasn't allowed though: You can take money from private workers and the union wouldn't give a shit. You can't take money from the unions though, which is what this would have done. Unions give power to unions, not to worker. They are just as exploitative as any business or corporate structure, more-so in a lot of ways. The sooner everyone realizes that, the better off we'll all be. Also, as a side point, shared suffering is what makes collective bargaining possible, it's not what the point is. If one loses, all lose, that's the power of collective bargaining. Which is also what took away one of the points of a free society, the right to make ones own contracts with whomever they choose.

Oh I see, I didn't realize that the union leaders forcibly tied every single worker to a chair, pointed a gun at their head, and forced them to join the union against their will. I always assumed workers formed unions because they wanted to. But that's ridiculous, all union members are tortured souls unfairly forced into this unholy contract with the tyrannical oppressors that are union representatives.But in all seriousness, it is nice to hear you acknowledge that businesses are exploitative. The way I see it unions are an imperfect counter to that exploitation. Perhaps you could say it's counter-exploitation. Instead of bargaining with someone who wants your salary to be as low as possible you're bargaining with someone who wants everyone's to be raised. the idea that non-unionized workers actually had any sort of freedom to bargain beforehand though is hilarious. I guess they had the freedom to quit. Unions actually do open up a third option for them.I'll leave you with the words of Ronald Reagan

Oh I see, I didn't realize that the union leaders forcibly tied every single worker to a chair, pointed a gun at their head, and forced them to join the union against their will. I always assumed workers formed unions because they wanted to.

I had to register because of the sheer ignorance in your hyperbolic sarcasm. Here's a little tidbit for you, in most states with heavy union presence, if you want to work in a field that has a union you are required to join that union and pay dues, whether you want their representation or not. You also get the privilege of paying 2-10% of your pay as union dues even if you did not want to join the union at all.

Anecdote incoming! Had a friend, got one of the few jobs available in her area, that job had it mandatory that she be part of the union. Union dues were instantly due to cover from the beginning of the year to the current date, so her entire first pay check went to union dues, without her say so, the union automatically deducted them, and this was perfectly legal/state enforced.

Most people who are part of unions do not have a choice. Unions used to be about ensuring employees were not exploited, but since federal law has kind of taken over that issue, unions are just corrupt, greedy organizations. Oh, who are we kidding, ever since people made their living being union reps unions have been little better than organized crime.

Look at Michigan for example, Prop 4, sponsored by Service Employees International Union tried to get all healthcare workers reclassified as public employees where they would be union members against their will and obligated by state law to pay union dues to that union even if they are private contractors. Lucky for them that was defeated, sadly only 57% of voters realized what a scam that legislation was.

So, yes, in most states being part of a union is not a choice made by the employee. They cannot opt out if they want to remain employed. They cannot refuse to pay union dues (which are usually automatically deducted from their pay check) if they do not agree with the union's policies. They are very much part of a parasitic organization against their will, and that parasitic organization is usually backed by state law that allows them to garnish wages and mandate employment status.

I honestly did not know that there were unions out there that people could be forced to join. Actually, until today I never even considered the possibility that anyone wouldn't want to join a union. I mean come on, the entire point of unions is to help protect employees rights and make sure they receive fair wages. People in unions make about 27 percent more on average and get better benefits. Why would you want to avoid that?

I mean I'd KILL to be in a union. I almost mean that literally. I make minimum wage and could be fired tomorrow for showing up to work late. So to hear people COMPLAIN about being in a union is mindblowing. It's like hearing someone whine about getting too many frenchfries with their happymeal.

And in all fairness to your friend, did she really not anticipate this when she applied for the job? The union may have been mandatory but it seems like she must have known about the union when she applied. Maybe not. I don't know what to think any more, my whole perception of the universe is upside down now.

Anyway, for the record I am NOT in favor of forced union membership. Any union that acts in that manner is a disgrace to the very concept of collective bargaining rights. Unions should exist to help people, not bully them. And the option to opt out should always at least exist.

The Hostess factories were operating at less than 50% capacity, and had been for the last 5 years or so. Some time in the past, slmost certainly before the recent string of CEO changes, upper management misjudged future demand or competition. Plain and simple. However, because of the unions, subsequent management was not allowed to close down extraneous factories and fire unneeded workers. So instead they were forced to try and reduce salaries and pension plans. The baker's union balked and went on strike. As such, Hostess went into liquidation. End of story.

Well, these things were never available around here (outside US that is), but I seriously checked ebay to see if I should finally taste one and see what's the deal about. Well what could I expect: inflated prices and all those 'sold out!' 'no longer in production!' banners.

NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO... actally. they never exported it outside america so i don't think it will make much diffrence to me. i also only tried it once and it was good. but not OH MY GOD OH MY GOD! NOOO! DON'T TAKE THEM! NO PLEASE GOD NO! good. if you really wanna sit down in the corner and cry over this be my guest.

Formica Archonis:Unions have their place, I'm more than willing to admit. But going on strike when the company is already under bankruptcy protection? HOW DID THEY NOT SEE THIS COMING? Oh, they have barely enough money coming in to function, let's fuck their revenue stream over! Did they think the slow collapse of the company in a bad economy was all just a very complex ruse to cut their wages?

That's a huge question you're asking there.

If unions are just rigid, stubborn entities fighting an epic fight (involving class warfare) it's one thing, a battle of ideologies.

If unions are actually and actively risking the jobs and livelihoods of workers and risking destroying jobs just to further their cause and pee on the leg of higher-ups, management and capitalism in general, I seriously doubt it's a good thing. Low prices only work if the math adds up. Once it doesn't, the jobs go to the other end of the world.

Currently, I find it hard to make proper sense of what they were thinking, but I find it appalling to manipulate workers into making them destroy their own jobs. It's just really, really bad style.

Beyond that, I am no fan of processed high-carb foodstuffs. But there were moments when a quick Twinkie was pretty much a lifesaver and a really beautiful thing.

bobmus:Thank-you for that reference in the picture, as Zombieland is pretty much the only reason why I really know anything about Twinkies.Tried 'em while I was in the US. It was alright...

Exactly, why is this American news on an international gaming website where most readers have no idea Wtf your talking about? This is not gaming related in any way shape or form and thus doesn't belong here.

bobmus:Thank-you for that reference in the picture, as Zombieland is pretty much the only reason why I really know anything about Twinkies.Tried 'em while I was in the US. It was alright...

Exactly, why is this American news on an international gaming website where most readers have no idea Wtf your talking about? This is not gaming related in any way shape or form and thus doesn't belong here.

So? Just because it's not gaming related doesn't mean that they can't report it. And they can report american news because it's this ks an international site just because you don't think it's relevant doesn't mean it isn't to someone else

UPDATE: The Twinkie is saved! Or at least, it's not quite as dead as it appeared. The bankruptcy judge in the case declared that Hostess and the bakers' union have not yet undertaken the "critical step of mediation," and asked the lawyer for the union to request its participation. The company could still ultimately be liquidated, but it appears that the matter isn't quite as settled as Rayburn claimed.

Ok, let me see if I understand this: Hostess technically isn't done for good yet because they didn't file the right paperwork/wait long enough to declare bankruptcy? Sooo... my sweet, wondrous, not real food products can come back full force under the Hostess name? (sorry, not much of one for legalese)

Sorry, I can't cut it up like you did. That is way too complicated at this point, so you'll have to excuse my way of representing this. That is why I don't typically like to cut stuff up, personally. The points are in order of your responses, to simplify.

Point 1: The issue isn't that they aren't making acceptable wages. The issue they can't deal with is loss aversion, which is simply human nature. All wages are relative to what your wage history is. There is not a definitive number for acceptable for any group, but unions make that number as high as they can so they get more money. Some unions take wages well beyond what the union members make. My buddies father was a union electrician. He was making about $35 an hour back in the 80's. But the unions was getting about $45 an hour for him, meaning that he was representing a total wage of $80 an hour, most of which was taken by the union itself.

Point 2:Comparing Democracy to Communism, that of course make Democracy perfect in comparison, but we are once again talking reference points, which is the primary thing that keeps people from being rational in any given situation. I would invite you to read Democracy: The God that Failed as a start. I would also invite you to look at out democracy and tell me how perfect it is and in what way. We are of course getting into the realm of opinion and not fact. But just as a point of reference, Democracy isn't by default the best, and especially not here in America. It's a highly idealized system of government, but it's probably not the be all/end all of political systems. The problem is that it ignores individuals, like unions do. There are socioeconomic political systems that in theory, respect and enforce the individual, such as anarcho-capitalism. In a democracy, the individual is crushed under the wants and desires of their peers. It's the same in the union environment. Just because you get to vote, you have the illusion of choice, but in democracy, one voice is completely inconsequential. If people were rational beings, one voice could sway a crowd, but as it stands, a crowd is far more likely to sway one voice.

Point 3: To return to my beehive analogy, you are right, they don't fight among themselves. But like minded members of a society do not fight among themselves either. They do fight with other sectors of society who don't have the same goals as they do, however. As one colony of bees competes with other colonies of bees. Union people don't fight among themselves, but they do fight with the rest of society. The queen asks of her workers less than society asks of workers? This is not so. They know no other way, but the queen demands all of their work and that they sacrifice themselves if need be for the hive. And the workers do not have a choice at all. But, they don't have free will. Truthfully, bees are much more rational the people.

But, back to business. The truth is, CEO's are over payed. They don't affect a company as much as they believe, as explained by Leonard Mlodinow in The Drunkards Walk: How Randomness Rules our Lives . This was also expanded on in Danial Kahneman's works. Essentially, the ups and downs in a company as compared to actions of the CEO matches random chance and not skill based activity.

The reason why CEO's are payed so much though is because of transparency. Years ago, the government stepped in and said that CEO pay has to be public. The idea is that if people know about it, the CEO's won't do it. But as Dan Ariely discovered in his research, when people know their dishonest actions are public, they are even more dishonest. And while people try to adjust for knowing someone is being dishonest, they don't ever adjust enough. Not that CEO's are exclusively dishonest, but it's hard to argue they are worth what they are payed as they are not displaying skill as much as random chance of success or failure. But, it's because of transparency that CEO salaries are far far larger than they used to be.

Point 3:It's not acceptable for me, personally, that if my co workers are unhappy about something but I'm fine with it, that they make me not work because of it. Any sane man would choose employment over unemployment. But Mobs are not rational. They are completely irrational and as such, make choices which they believe benefits them at the time.

Point 4:Any economist will tell you that reallocation of resources to a place where they can be better utilized is a good move. But there must be places for these people to go to utilize their skills and make a living. If such a a place existed they would have simply left Hostess for the better job, but they instead chose to picket Hostess. No economist would tell you that the loss of 18000+ jobs is a good thing. But, standard economic models are also based off the idea of the rational agent model. It assumes people are rational and will make choices that benefit both themselves and society. But people are not rational and will only make choices that seem good at the time and will not apply rational logic to the situation. An heroine addict will do anything for that next high when the pain of withdraw comes, even if it's better for both them and society if they break the cycle they live in and not get high.

Point 5: I now that N-E drove this one home pretty well, but I'll reiterate it. You do not have to join a union when you there is a job that is held by union people. You don't have to get embroiled at all. But you must pay union dues and you must go by union contract. But they aren't holding a gun to your head. You don't need to be protected by the union, as you won't be because you are not a union member. You are also free of having any say at all in negotiations and talks about your job and contract. I do not blame people for wanting to be apart of that structure. Union members prosper far above people who are held down by market forces. Most people do not have the personal or emotional fortitude to turn down positions like that when they are offered.

Ronald Reagan said that to get the votes of union workers. And he himself was terrible in the sense that his campaign promises were mere fabrication, as history shows. One of the biggest lies he told was America being free of foreign oil dependence. When he was elected, America imported 45% of it's oil from OPEC nations. When he left the presidency that number went up to about 65%. This was just one of many lies he told. I wouldn't quote that guy if you payed me money to.

I feel like this needs to be said: I'm thoroughly enjoying our debate. I have not meant anything as attacking. I just wanted to say that as I know these things can become heated.

bobmus:Thank-you for that reference in the picture, as Zombieland is pretty much the only reason why I really know anything about Twinkies.Tried 'em while I was in the US. It was alright...

Exactly, why is this American news on an international gaming website where most readers have no idea Wtf your talking about? This is not gaming related in any way shape or form and thus doesn't belong here.

So? Just because it's not gaming related doesn't mean that they can't report it. And they can report american news because it's this ks an international site just because you don't think it's relevant doesn't mean it isn't to someone else

Well put it this way, does it report on when a business (other than a came company) outside the US goes under? Under your argument then all world news should be reported.

Too many union-bashing people here ignore one key ingredient in this case: venture capital firms like Bain. Since Hostess last bankruptcy debacle, it has been under control of venture capital firms, who have NO EXPERIENCE in making confectionery. Their entire purpose is to laden the companies with debt, raid pensions, cut labor compensations, and make a profit by declaring bankruptcy and through liquidation.

Labor fall into this trap and become the scapegoat, and are criticized by a lot of ignorant people like those in this thread.

(I have a phd in economics and a master in corporate finance, in case you are wondering "what does this dumbwit know?")

Exactly, why is this American news on an international gaming website where most readers have no idea Wtf your talking about? This is not gaming related in any way shape or form and thus doesn't belong here.

So? Just because it's not gaming related doesn't mean that they can't report it. And they can report american news because it's this ks an international site just because you don't think it's relevant doesn't mean it isn't to someone else

Well put it this way, does it report on when a business (other than a came company) outside the US goes under? Under your argument then all world news should be reported.

Just because the main theme of the site is gaming that doesn't mean it has to adhere strictly to that itf you'll notice this site features more than just that one topic. And what's wrong with report more than just gaming news anyway? Some people come to this site for more than just that.

I'm extremely pro-union, which is one of the areas I'm left of the fence on. I find it odd how anti-Romney this site was (in a general sense) given that the majority seem to be espousing a very pro-business attitude here.. ironically in one of the things that I parted from him (and the party line) on, contributing to my frequent comments about not liking either cantidate.

At any rate, the bottom line is that people need to be able to make enough money to support themselves at a reasonable standard of living (which is quite high in the US). Companies don't want to cut into their profits to maintain that standard of living, though they otherwise want it to exist, so that they can of course sell their products. The general reaction to being made to give up money to workers and benefits is to of course want to raise prices and pass them onto the consumbers, or in the case of things like Obamacare (which I think is stupid despite my general leanings on this subject, but I won't get into that here) find ways to avoid having to provide as little as possible for the workers.

Unions are a good idea as they push for worker's benefits and force companies to provide their employees with a fair standard of living, something that businesses are not going to do on their own.

What we're seeing with Hostess is a typical tactic from a business chafing under the realities of being a fair employer. Threats of bankrupcy, layoffs, cutting hours, lockouts, and similar things are all par for the course in situations like this. As is the tendency by venture capital firms to want to sell out, pocket the money, and run, rather than be stuck with a less profitable business (as someone else mentioned), which in this case it seems the courts are calling them on.... which is a good thing, because stuff like this has been being let slide far too frequently over the years.

Now here is where people will start screaming I'm insane, and also how I reconcile this with a lot of the rest of my belief structure:

An increasing problem with global economics is robber economies like China (and a lot of other nations to be honest, even if they are the worst offender) with a lower standard of living are able to employ what amounts to slave labour through sweat shops to produce goods cheaply, a refusal to acknowlege global copyright and IP laws also means that they don't worry about pesky things like liscensing or who actually invented something. This means that these nations produce the same products as a nation like the US for pennies on the dollar and are able to undercut and steal a lot of our global business, which means less sales and profits which makes paying workers enough to maintain and expand the American standard of living increasingly difficult.

With the money being made, simply saying "stop" doesn't exactly cut it, nor do attempts at sanctions and embargoes, especially when the nations that need to be regulated are themselves members of groups like the UN that are supposed to do the regulating... sort of like assigning the fox to protect the henhouse. This is ultimatly why I have zero confident in the UN and have long argued that the US and a few allied nations should instead pull out of it and reform as a new group designed to promote their own interests, and head off the UN and the robber nations whose interests it seems to increasingly support (through a lack of action if nothing else).

In the end economics do not stop wars, but cause them, as I've long said. I'm a believer that the bottom line is going to be that World War III will start when the USA and other victim nations finally lose enough economically and suffer enough strife to invade countries like China for the sole purpose of knocking them out of global competition. After all if China is forced to no longer be able to produce knockoff products and the like, that means they won't be competing with US products, which means more money coming in, and it will be less of a stretch for companies to pay workers. While companies exagerrate, there is a lot of truth behind their abillity to support workers at a high standard of living with their profits being increasingly cut into by foreign production. You see a "made in China" label on a product at a price lower than the one made in the US and that's kind of the problem. It's not nice to talk about carpet bombing the poor communist peasant who lives in abject misery, but in the end what he does, and the actions of his goverment and society, are responsible for a lot of these problems. Like many things it's an "us or them" equasion, either we kill them and take them out of competition, and maintain our standard of living, or we let ourselves dwindle away under constant strife and lost revenues while that country becomes richer and more powerful (with most of that money going into goverment coffers).

In short it fits into my overall militant point of view, and attitudes about using the military to leverage US interests, strikes to kill civilians and cripple infrastructures, and similar things. Ultimatly ending with the basic attitude that even if everyone turned on us (which is bloody unlikely given how this actually breakds down) in the end MAD is the answer. The US goes down, economically or otherwise, everyone else dies as well. Mutually assured destruction being the final word, whether it's from military attack, or the failure of the American economy, we go down, we take everyone with us. Not nice, but that is pretty much what the principle is all about.

No, I'm not going to argue the point, this is just what I think, I already know what most people on these forums think in return.

In the end, we'll see what happens with Hostess. In this paticular microcosm we might be able to address the problem by simply increasing the taxes on competing products that might be coming into the country, or owned by foreign nationals even if they operate here. Assuming it's the usual case of American workers, expecting an American standard of living, making a product too expensive to compete with foreign businesses. On the other hand, I don't know much about the baked goods industry, if Hostess is getting slammed by other purely American brands that are providing all of the benefits demanded by Hostess employees (as opposed to shirking, hiring immigrant labour, etc...), Hostess DOES deserve to go down, that's simply what capitalism and competition is all about... no brand is forever, and if it's happened purely in America without outside concerns or other appropriate factors, they really aren't worth saving. In that case obviously snacks like The Twinkie were not so popular that they were able to sustain Hostess in light of competing products.

werewolfsfury:So? Just because it's not gaming related doesn't mean that they can't report it. And they can report american news because it's this ks an international site just because you don't think it's relevant doesn't mean it isn't to someone else

Well put it this way, does it report on when a business (other than a came company) outside the US goes under? Under your argument then all world news should be reported.

Just because the main theme of the site is gaming that doesn't mean it has to adhere strictly to that itf you'll notice this site features more than just that one topic. And what's wrong with report more than just gaming news anyway? Some people come to this site for more than just that.

I don't have an issue with non gaming news as long as its not just one country (aka America), if they want to have other news then no problem, but open it to other nations too.

OT: it always sucks when people lost their job, but the employees can thank their union for that. Over here their voluntary.

Bakers are the makers. Management and the capital are the takers: they take what bakers make. Now the makers want a little bit more of what they make, and they get scolded?

Traditional unions are outdated: because back in the days there was not a force that was as sinister as venture capitalists. Unions need to evolve to fight the overwhelming odds against them (including many brain-washed union-bashing know-nothings such as those on this site)

Well put it this way, does it report on when a business (other than a came company) outside the US goes under? Under your argument then all world news should be reported.

Just because the main theme of the site is gaming that doesn't mean it has to adhere strictly to that itf you'll notice this site features more than just that one topic. And what's wrong with report more than just gaming news anyway? Some people come to this site for more than just that.

I don't have an issue with non gaming news as long as its not just one country (aka America), if they want to have other news then no problem, but open it to other nations too.

OT: it always sucks when people lost their job, but the employees can thank their union for that. Over here their voluntary.

I can accept that.But like i said earlier just because it doesn't affect you doesn't mean it isn't important. If they only reported news that effects all countries at the same time then i wouldn't knlow very much about worldy affairs

I became anti-union years ago in Colorado, when I was notified by the Union it was in the best interest of the Union and workers to have unified shifts instead of being able to work around college schedules.

When I worked to campaign for Colorado to become a right-to-work state(People don't have to pay union dues if they don't join the Union), Unions from all over the country spend several million dollars to oppose that initiative.

ugh, my local walmart had all these different big boxes of various hostess snacks on sale for 2 dollars a box so I bought like six different kinds (to find out what all the fuss was about) and just trying to eat two of the little bars was an awful experience, it has the texture of junk food but you have to pace yourselves with it like you would fancy candy all around leaving me with an overall awful experience, ate one of the muffins and a little pink roll thing and have been feeling sick ever since :( No wonder they are going out of bussiness with garbage like this I'm surprised anyone ever bought any of their stuff

Baldr:I became anti-union years ago in Colorado, when I was notified by the Union it was in the best interest of the Union and workers to have unified shifts instead of being able to work around college schedules.

So the needs of a college kid(s) take precedence over the poor schmucks that will be still working at that job long after the college kid(s) has finished their education and moved on to bigger and better things?

I hope those 5000 nuts are happy that their Union just cost them and the other 13,500 people their jobs.

Baresark:Useless ass unions. Ayn Rand called situations like this. In Atlas Shrugged, things get hard, people are losing money left and right, everyone is suffering, and Unions are all demanding raises and more, when there isn't more to give. The unions fail to negotiate and they have a stranglehold on the company.

First of all, it was the management's failure make their brand more relevant in today's market. The company had been on a decline for years. When the company entered bankruptcy, the Union agreed to $150 million annual givebacks. Pensions and healthcare were cut as well, with labor's total loss equaling $110 million annually. Yet when the company was bought by Ripplewood, unions did not get a place on the board. By making concessions, the union was being a major investor without representation. They trusted Ripplewood to turn things around, but the new management drove the whole thing to the ground. They did not launch any new product and revenues kept going down.

When Hostess lost another $341 million in 2011, the workers were again pushed to have their salary and benifit cut down by 30%. Meanwhile, the CEO who drove the company into bankruptcy got a pay raise. A previous failed chief executive, Brian J. Driscoll, was pushed out, but only after the board tripled his pay package to $2.55 million.

Management ordered the company to stop contributing to the union pension funds, ignoring their obligations under collective bargaining agreements. They demanded a new round of concessions, which would have doubled insurance premiums, negated all pension obligations, and slashed pay by 27 to 32 percent. Meanwhile, while blaming the workers for the collapse, the CEO asked a bankruptcy judge permission to pay executives $1.75 million in bonuses to oversee the dissolution of the company (and 18,000-plus union jobs). And that's after a round of executive pay raises earlier this year.

14-year Hostess bakery veteran:Remember how I said I made $48,000 in 2005 and $34,000 last year? I would make $25,000 in five years if I took their offer. It will be hard to replace the job I had, but it will be easy to replace the job they were trying to give me.

Are you really surprised that 92 percent of them voted against accepting the cuts?

Jake Blumgart:In a healthier and more just labor system, the Hostess crisis would be seen as the decline of a moribund and dreadfully mismanaged company, not a symptom of organized labor's malaise.